Sir Peter Job tests patience of angry investors

He should know the drill, the newspaper said. When the majority of voting shareholders in a major FTSE 100 company give a thumbs-down to the report on directors' remuneration, vague words from the non-executives about "reflecting carefully" only buy a little time. After a while, action is expected, which usually means a resignation.

“A fortnight after Shell's defeat, it's worth asking: what is Job waiting for? If he's hoping that shareholders' anger will abate, he will be disappointed. Fund managers remember how he referred to the bonus issue as ‘an irritant’ and they are determined to be irritating.

“More likely, Job fails to appreciate why investors are angry. Let's spell it out: Shell paid £3.6m in bonuses to directors even though performance targets were missed - the firm finished fourth, rather than third or better, in a league table of big oil companies ranked by shareholder returns.

“Yes, the small print allowed the remuneration committee to use discretion but the 60% vote against its report shows that shareholders think the right was abused.

“Job plans meetings with shareholders in autumn, suggesting he thinks he can survive that long. Maybe he can but humiliation looks inevitable if he's still clinging on at next year's annual meeting. A prompt resignation would surely be more dignified.” ■